IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 23.08.2010
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice G.RAJASURIA
C.R.P.(NPD) No.48 of 2010
and
M.P.No.5 of 2010
P.Anandan ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.S.Anand ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed on 04.12.2009 in MP No.337 of 2009 in RCOP No.2175 of 2008 on the file of the XII Judge, (Rent Controller) Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Baskaran
O R D E R
Inveighing the order dated 04.12.2009 passed in MP No.337 of 2009 in RCOP No.2175 of 2008 by the learned XII Judge, (Rent Controller) Court of Small Causes, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenant.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A ‘resume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this matter would run thus:
Indubitably and indisputably, the respondent herein filed RCOP as against the revision petitioner/tenant herein for eviction. The respondent remained ex parte, whereupon ex parte order of eviction was ordered. Thereafter, an application to get the delay of 192 days condoned in filing the application to get the ex parte order of eviction set aside was filed. That application for condonation of delay was ordered subject to payment of certain arrears. Whereupon the tenant being aggrieved by such alleged onerous condition, instead of filing RCA invoking Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], he filed this revision treating as though it was a civil Court order under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. During the pendency of this revision, my learned Predecessor passed conditional order and that order was not complied with in time. Subsequently, M.P.No.5 of 2010 was filed so as to get extension of time for complying with the condition.
4. Today when the matter has come up before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.41,600/- (Rupees forty one thousand six hundred only), which constitutes payment of arrears till date to the Advocate of the landlord. As such, I would like to condone the delay in complying with the conditional order imposed by this Court.
5. A core question arises as to whether this revision petition should have been numbered at all. Whereupon, the Registry also clarified that the revision petitioner himself made endorsement at the time of filing this revision petition as under:
“The CRP challenging the order passed conditional order only. Hence the Revision is maintainable under Article 227 Constitution of India.” (extracted as such)
6. I am of the considered opinion that invoking Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in a matter of this nature is totally a misconceived one. Section 23 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:
“23. Appeal.- (1)(a) The Government may, by general or special order notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purpose of this Act, in such areas and in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.
(b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction.
In computing the fifteen days aforesaid, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded.
(2) On such appeal being preferred, the Appellate Authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal.
(3) The Appellate Authority shall call for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal.
Explanation.- The Appellate Authority may, while confirming the order of eviction passed by the Controller, grant an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building.
(4) The decision of the Appellate Authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of Law, except as provided in Section 25.”
which clearly contemplates that as against any order passed by the Rent Controller, appeal would lie and as against the order of the appellate authority’s order, revision would lie as per S.25 of the Act and in such a case, the question of invoking Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in my considered opinion is not at all proper in this factual scenario.
7. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in the interest of justitia pie ponderous (speedy justice), I would like to direct the Registry to send the papers in the CRP to the appellate Court to number it as RCA and dispose it of after hearing both sides within a period of one month.
8. Both parties shall appear before the RCA Court on 30.08.2010 and it is open for the petitioner herein to move the appellate Court for stay and till then there shall not be any delivery of the demised premises.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.08.2010
gms
INDEX : YES/NO
INTERNET : YES/NO
G.RAJASURIA.J.,
gms
To
The XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
C.R.P.(NPD) No.48 of 2010
23.08.2010